The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #361  
Old 12-05-2012, 01:30 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,169
If the sovereign marries a RC and the children are raised in the Church of England, than personally have no problem with this
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #362  
Old 12-05-2012, 01:54 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Orleans, United States
Posts: 1,161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke-of-Earl
The thing about hereditary peers is, once created by Letters Patent, not even the Queen can alter the 'terms' of the peerage.
The standard remainder is legitimate males heirs, so it will take an Act of Parliament to change the remainder to equal primogeniture.
What about Queen Victoria changing the LPs(?) to allow a daughter to become the Duchess of Fife in her own right because there was no male heir? (late 1800s)
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #363  
Old 12-05-2012, 03:10 PM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by casualfan View Post
What about Queen Victoria changing the LPs(?) to allow a daughter to become the Duchess of Fife in her own right because there was no male heir? (late 1800s)
Letters Patent of a peerage cannot be amended by the Monarch alone; that can only be done by an Act of Parliament.

Queen Victoria never changed the Letters Patent of the Duke of Fife title. Theoretically, she could have requested an Act of Parliament to be passed to allow female inheritance, but she just chose an easier way: she simply granted a second Dukedom of Fife to Alexander (Princess Louise's husband). The wording of the Letters Patent of the original 1889 Duke of Fife title contained the usual "heirs male of his body" remainder. When the Queen granted the second Dukedom in 1900, the Letters Patent of the new title contained a remainder that allowed the title to pass to daughters of the first Duke (in absence of male heirs). In other words, Alexander Duff, 1st Duke of Fife actually held two Dukedoms of Fife - the 1889 and 1900 creations (a side note: the 1900 creation was the very last hereditary dukedom created in the Peerage of the United Kingdom save for those created for consorts, sons and grandsons of the Sovereign). Basically, the first Dukedom of Fife became extinct and the second one was inherited by the Duke's daughter.



Quote:
Originally Posted by csw View Post
I often wonder if Edward and Wallis deliberately avoided having children. I wonder if they may have had children if he had kept the throne.
I guess it's possible but not sure I see the reasoning: the Duke of Windsor had forfeited all claims to the Throne for himself and any of his descendants so if he and Wallis had 15 kids, that wouldn't affect the Line of Succession in any way.
Reply With Quote
  #364  
Old 12-05-2012, 04:34 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,128
I don't know where the 6th in line came from but that is going to be the new regulation so it does mean the Eugenie for instance doesn't even have to tell her family - she can elope legally if she so desired.

Whether Andrew and Sarah would like to remarry only they know but the fact that Philip wouldn't accept her means that Andrew would have to choose between his parents and Sarah (and he doesn't have the strength to stand up to them as shown when they forced him to divorce her in the first place).

The point I am making is that when Andrew drops to 7th in line he can remarry her without needing the monarch's consent first - whether that is his mother or his brother or nephew doesn't matter - he will be free to marry Sarah or Koo or ....

Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
Taking the Andrew/Sarah re-marry a step further, I hope that the Queen (or someone) leaves him loads of money because if he marries without monarch's consent he will not be carrying out royal duties and those two are expensive! What would they live on?

The point is though that after the changes are made the monarch won't have that threat to hold over their heads as they will be able to marry legally.

Of course with a proposed future working royal family of Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, Harry, spouse, Andrew, Edward, Sophie and Anne those 6th and below will in time not be carrying out royal duties anyway.

The idea of Andrew and Sarah marrying was thrown in as a thought while what I was really commenting on was the change to the RMA itself.
Reply With Quote
  #365  
Old 12-05-2012, 11:08 PM
samitude's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: , United States
Posts: 748
If this law does get passed does that mean that Princess Anne will immediately jump to number five? Will it be like this?

1) Charles
2) William
3) Baby
4) Harry
5) Anne
6) Peter
7) Savannah
8) Isla
9) Zara
10)Andrew
__________________
Sylvia M.
Reply With Quote
  #366  
Old 12-05-2012, 11:21 PM
Queen Penelope's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Camrose, Canada
Posts: 666
The law won't be retroactive. The line won't change as far as Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward and their children are concerned. It will be a going-forward thing, so any kids from when the law is passed on will be affected.
Reply With Quote
  #367  
Old 12-05-2012, 11:29 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,128
The stated date for the law to become effective was 2011 so even a son for Peter and Autumn (should they have a third child will be behind his two older sisters).

There is no intention to move Anne, Peter, Savannah, Isla and Zara ahead of Andrew and his children or Edward and his children, nor to put Louise ahead of James.

The new law will be like this:

Charles
William
William's children in birth order
Harry
Harry's children in birth order
Andrew
Beatrice
Beatrice's children in birth order
Eugenie
Eugenie's children in birth order
Edward
James
James' children in birth order
Louise
Louise's children in birth order
Anne
Peter
Savannah
Isla
Any further children of Peter in birth order
Zara
Zara's children in birth order.
Reply With Quote
  #368  
Old 12-06-2012, 12:00 AM
Sunnystar's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oregon, United States
Posts: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I don't know where the 6th in line came from but that is going to be the new regulation so it does mean the Eugenie for instance doesn't even have to tell her family - she can elope legally if she so desired.
Aren't the first five in who have reached their 18th birthday usually Counsellors of State? That could be where 6th in line came from.
Reply With Quote
  #369  
Old 12-06-2012, 12:21 PM
samitude's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: , United States
Posts: 748
Oh, I see now. Thank you for explaining this. I edited my original post to correct Peter's second daughter's name. I had her down as Sienna and I see that her name is Isla. I knew it was a celebrity name and I couldn't think of what it was.
__________________
Sylvia M.
Reply With Quote
  #370  
Old 12-06-2012, 09:00 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,128
First four in line over 21 are Counsellors of State unless they are the heir apparent who becomes one at 18.

Charles - aged 18.

William, Harry and Andrew all at 21 (as did Edward and Anne and the others before them such as Margaret, Richard of Gloucester, Edward of Kent etc)

When the Queen first became Queen the Counsellors of State were - Margaret, Henry of Gloucester, Princess Mary and the late Earl of Harewood.

As others ahead of these in the line of succession turned 21 the last one dropped off e.g. Edward of Kent replaced the late Earl of Harewood, in 1957, and the following year Princess Alexandra replaced Princess Mary.

The only Counsellors of State who isn't in the first four is the consort of the monarch and the consort of previous monarchs e.g. Philip and The Queen Mother.

When the Queen passes Beatrice will step up and be the fourth CoS until either this new baby turns 21 in Charles' reign or it turns 18 in William's reign but she may have to return to the position for a year or so at times as well, depending on when those ahead of her die, like Richard of Gloucester had to do in the 60s and early 70s.

Although Philip is eligible he has actually never served because everytime the Queen has gone overseas he has gone with her and so has been out of the country.
Reply With Quote
  #371  
Old 12-07-2012, 03:23 AM
AnnEliza's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Seattle, United States
Posts: 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
The ultimate "what if" must be: What if they are siamese twins?
Heaven forbid!

But I think one still comes out first. Depending on where they are conjoined.
Reply With Quote
  #372  
Old 12-07-2012, 04:24 PM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,479
This thread is supposed to be about the impacts and ramifications of the proposed changes to the Act of Settlement, Royal Marriages Act etc, and not a rehash of the ins and outs of the Andrew-Sarah relationship.

Posts discussing a York remarriage in terms of the characters of the Duke and his former wife have been removed.

Warren
British Forums moderator
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #373  
Old 12-07-2012, 05:28 PM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,479
A summary of the proposed changes

Abolition of male primogeniture relating to Succession to the Throne, backdated to 28 October 2011.

In the 15 other countries where the Queen is Head of State the laws must be changed. Legislation will be required in the Commonwealth nations of the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Jamaica, Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Barbados, Grenada, Belize, St Christopher and Nevis, St Lucia, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, St Vincent and the Grenadines and Papua New Guinea.

Changes will involve amendments to some of Britain’s key constitutional documents, such as the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement.

The proposed legislation will refer to the descendants of the current Prince of Wales, meaning that younger sons will no longer take precedence over an elder daughter in the line of succession and William’s first child would follow him in the line of succession, whether a girl or a boy.

The barrier to the heir to the throne marrying a Roman Catholic will also be removed, but it will not affect the position of the Anglican Church as the established Church. The Queen and future monarchs will be Anglicans and Supreme Governors of the Church of England.

Members of the Royal Family who marry a Roman Catholic will also in future be able to succeed to the Crown.

An ancient and unused law requiring descendants of George II to gain the consent of the monarch to marry will only apply to the first six people in the line of succession.

The UK government will need to introduce legislation to change the Coronation Oath Act 1688,
the Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Settlement 1701, the Act of Union with Scotland 1706 and the Royal Marriages Act 1772.

Succession relating to Peerages remains unchanged.

The new rules will apply only to descendants of the Prince of Wales born after 28 October 2011.

The two members of the extended Royal Family born after this date but not affected by the changes are:
Isla Phillips (March 2012) - has an elder sister and no brothers;
Tane Lewis (May 2012) - ahead of his elder sister in the line of succession

sources: various

__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #374  
Old 12-07-2012, 05:41 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,256
If the legislation is meant to apply to the heirs and descendents of the current Prince of Wales, why would the positions of the Duke of Gloucesters grandchildren (Tane Lewis) change at all?
Reply With Quote
  #375  
Old 12-07-2012, 05:45 PM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,479

You're right, I've contradicted myself.
Tane Lewis can rest easy!
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #376  
Old 12-07-2012, 05:49 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren View Post

You're right, I've contradicted myself.
Tane Lewis can rest easy!
Thanks. So if Peter and Autumn Phillips were to have a son would the current rules, male before females, apply? I have seen some say yes and some say no, but if the change only applies to the heirs of Prince Charles I would assume that for Anne and her heirs it is still males before females.

I have also see some write that succession will be limited to the heirs of QEII or perhaps GV but I havent seen anything about that in any government proposals and also can't see a benefit to it for anyone.
Reply With Quote
  #377  
Old 12-07-2012, 05:58 PM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,479
I think initially it was announced that male primogeniture would be abolished for those born after October 2011. Now that appears to have been tightened and limited to descendants of Charles only.

It's possible that other changes will be made to what the government has outlined as the legislation and legislative amendments are drawn up and debated in the Parliament.

It's also likely that various media reports will get things wrong and confuse the issue unnecessarily, eg limiting succession to the descendants of GVR or EIIR which serves no purpose whatsoever and to my knowledge hasn't been raised by any senior member of the governmenrt.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #378  
Old 12-07-2012, 06:25 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,324
How close is this to passing? And if just the one Parliament passes, would there be (temporarily) different lines of succession in different places? Or can one country forestall the entire process? Is that even known?
Reply With Quote
  #379  
Old 12-07-2012, 07:24 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,128
Yes - if one government passes it and the others don't then yes there could be different heirs in the different realms.
Reply With Quote
  #380  
Old 12-09-2012, 03:22 AM
AnnEliza's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Seattle, United States
Posts: 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Yes - if one government passes it and the others don't then yes there could be different heirs in the different realms.
It seems like that would cause an awful lot of confusion! There might be a Queen of the UK and her brother might be King of Jamaica, for example!
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession Elise,LadyofLancaster British Royals 942 03-09-2015 10:32 PM
Prince Frederik and Princess Mary's Official Visit to Australia: November 19-26, 2011 Princess Robijn Crown Prince Frederik and Crown Princess Mary and Family 295 08-28-2014 08:34 PM
The Change of the Act of Succession - 1979 Constitution Change GrandDuchess Royal House of Sweden 276 06-30-2014 12:52 AM
Prince Frederik and Princess Mary's Official Visit to Brazil: September 16-21, 2012 ricarda Crown Prince Frederik and Crown Princess Mary and Family 81 10-05-2012 04:15 PM
The Third Succession Act (Henry VIII, 1543) Daz_Voz British Royal History 4 07-25-2012 03:17 PM




Popular Tags
abdication belgium best outfit brussels carl philip crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events death fashion fashion poll funeral grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit ottoman picture of the week poland president gauck president hollande president komorowski prince carl philip prince daniel prince floris prince henrik princess alexia (2005 -) princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess madeleine princess mary princess mette-marit princess of asturias queen fabiola queen letizia queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sonja royal royal fashion sofia hellqvist spain state visit stockholm sweden the hague visit wedding willem-alexander



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:31 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2015
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]